To be honest I would rather that money to be ploughed into education, nursery places, free breakfasts, social care etc. That way it goes directly to the children themselves.
Gransnet forums
News & politics
Child benefit cap to be lifted
(57 Posts)It's heading up several headlines this morning.
Starmer will end the two child limit. This means families can claim tax credits can be paid for further children. đź‘Źđź‘Ź
"Keir Starmer has told cabinet ministers that he wants to scrap the two-child benefit cap and has asked the Treasury to identify ways to fund the plan.
With Labour MPs threatening to rebel over the government’s welfare reforms, the prime minister has privately made clear that he is determined to axe the limit in order to drive down child poverty.
“Keir wants to end the two-child cap – he thinks it’s the right thing to do,” one minister said. “It’s the best and most cost-effective way to reduce child poverty. The alternatives cost more and are less effective.”
observer.co.uk/news/national/article/starmer-to-scrap-two-child-benefit-cap-as-treasury-told-to-find-money
Its being suggested that the money could be found as follows
"One idea being discussed in Whitehall is to fund the measure through a levy on online gambling companies, which are already the subject of a Treasury review"
(Meanwhile of course the government is considering scrapping/altering the WFA, but that a been covered on other threads).
I see what you mean but when you have 21 county councils and 62 unitary councils splitting say ÂŁ3.5 billion (cost of abolishing the cap according to Resolution Foundation) a lot would go in administration plus you would have all the arguments over where in the country poverty is greater, with councils vying for a slice of the pie.
The last thing I would want is to see the newly-controlled Reform councils full of inexperienced officers handed a big slice of money, especially the new mayoralties headed up by Andrea Jenkyns and Luke Campbell.
Put an extra £75 a week directly into a family’s pocket and that’s more money for food and clothes.
I’d rather there was money for any measures that will lift families out of poverty MayBee70, but I don’t think it’s a linear issue, they need more money to clothe and feed their children too, so I agree with Silverbrooks.
MayBee70
To be honest I would rather that money to be ploughed into education, nursery places, free breakfasts, social care etc. That way it goes directly to the children themselves.
I am with you on this.
Nandalot
MayBee70
To be honest I would rather that money to be ploughed into education, nursery places, free breakfasts, social care etc. That way it goes directly to the children themselves.
I am with you on this.
I think I am too, although it's so long since mine were young I'm very out of touch with children and the costs involved, so my views may be out of date.
At first glance I applaud anything that lifts children out of poverty - who wouldn't? What I do feel though, is that there are many working families (not on benefits) who limit their families because of the costs, so it seems unfair that those on benefits gain by having more children.
As ever, I would prefer parents of all children to be given ÂŁ300+ each a month towards their upkeep, even if their parents work. Incentivising not working is never fair, IMO, whether it is paying out to pensioners who are short on NI payments or to non-working parents who claim benefits for larger families.
It increases resentment and fuels the many divisions we already have in society. As usual, it is those on low wages who will feel this most. Someone on minimum wage would have to work an extra 49 hours a month to earn the uncapped CB on the two extra children that his neighbour who doesn't work is given. The neighbour may also have no nursery fees when the worker is shelling out a significant amount, and that's before commuting and other work-related costs are factored in.
If we stopped means-testing any and all CB, and paid all parents a supplement for each child, it would allow people to to plan their families, and might increase the birthrate to the point where we need fewer immigrants to plug employment gaps, so it should please all shades of political opinion.
Children with additional needs should have rules and payments which are separate from all of this, as if their parents can't work, or if they have additional costs they are a special case and should be treated accordingly.
Some potentially good news:
UK child poverty taskforce set to recommend return of Sure Start scheme
www.theguardian.com/society/2025/may/25/uk-child-poverty-taskforce-set-to-recommend-return-of-sure-start-scheme
Silverbrooks
Some potentially good news:
UK child poverty taskforce set to recommend return of Sure Start scheme
www.theguardian.com/society/2025/may/25/uk-child-poverty-taskforce-set-to-recommend-return-of-sure-start-scheme
Sure Start Centres still exist, expansion is good if they are used.
Our local one is in danger of closure due to under use.
Article from 2023, when the Tories accepted that it was an error to close SureStart centres because of the impact they had.
www.newstatesman.com/thestaggers/2023/02/replacing-lost-sure-start-centres-is-a-tacit-admission-of-austeritys-failure
Silverbrooks
Some potentially good news:
UK child poverty taskforce set to recommend return of Sure Start scheme
www.theguardian.com/society/2025/may/25/uk-child-poverty-taskforce-set-to-recommend-return-of-sure-start-scheme
That would be good news, Silverbrooks and we know it works.
Locally the sure Start Centres used to be buzzing.
When government cuts hit them the council here tried to transfer what was happening into other projects in the most needy areas, but they didn't offer anything like what was there before and are under used by the Sure Start parents. Maybe its what is actually on offer now as opposed to the name.
I’d be delighted to see Sure Start come back with proper funding.
Has the removal of the 2child cap been confirmed? The last I heard was that it hasn’t.
I don’t think anything has been confirmed. AR was on LK yesterday and didn’t confirm it. She didn’t deny it either, which I took to mean that it will happen but the detail is being discussed (and will probably depend on reactions to the leak - which she did deny).
It would be good if Sure Start centres are reintroduced as they can have a positive affect.
Not sure on scrapping 2 child cap. It is not child benefit(that is paid regardless of how many children you have) but the money paid to those who are claiming universal credit or other benefits. Maybe don’t have more than 2 children if you can’t afford it? The money will have to come from somewhere.
wendyann23
It would be good if Sure Start centres are reintroduced as they can have a positive affect.
Not sure on scrapping 2 child cap. It is not child benefit(that is paid regardless of how many children you have) but the money paid to those who are claiming universal credit or other benefits. Maybe don’t have more than 2 children if you can’t afford it? The money will have to come from somewhere.
Some people are pushed into claiming UC after being made redundant, the death of a spouse etc.,
There probably are some claiming UC who have made it a life choice but I hope they are in the minority.
don’t have more than 2 children if you can’t afford it
Ah! The feckless argument.
People's circumstances change. They lose their jobs, their partner dies or leaves and they are reduced to one wage.
The government spends ÂŁ1.3 trillion a year. It can afford a measly ÂŁ3.5 billion a year so that children don't go hungry.
It currently spends ÂŁ5 billion a year giving prizes to Premium Bond holders, most of that to people who can afford to have holdings of ÂŁ50,000 (ÂŁ100,00 for couples) with no guarantee of a return.
Why do we prioritise wealthy gamblers over hungry children?
Mollygo
Has the removal of the 2child cap been confirmed? The last I heard was that it hasn’t.
(Yes the Observer report of the O/P reported it as a done deal but as people have said its clear now the discussions are well underway as to 3 issues to be announced child benefit cap, WFA, and mentioned this morning, disability. I certainly expect announcements on the first two.)
So it hasn’t been confirmed.
We're so used to "instant news" that we seem to want "instant confirmation" but on issues as complex as these we have to wait for the crucial details.
A quick look round the papers shows the usual "it depends on their POV" results.
Agreed, Wyllow. I hope there is clarification before the weather gets colder though. People need to be able to plan.
MayBee70
To be honest I would rather that money to be ploughed into education, nursery places, free breakfasts, social care etc. That way it goes directly to the children themselves.
Completely agree with you on this too.
Isn’t this government against benefitting the middle classes though? If a broad sweep approach to improving the lives of all children is implemented, would it be means tested?
ronib
Isn’t this government against benefitting the middle classes though? If a broad sweep approach to improving the lives of all children is implemented, would it be means tested?
One certainly would hope so. There’s no point in spending public money on people who don’t really need the services. SureStart is a very targeted approach for families who are in deprived circumstances, recognising that the first five years of life are the most critical to a child’s future life chances.
I thought the reason it was abandoned by Cameron was that more middle class parents were using it? I don't think that it was intended to be exclusively for the deprived, but to promote an equal start for all children. I'm happy to be corrected on that, though.
Yes SureStart should never have been stopped but does every child need a free breakfast?
Join the conversation
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join the discussion, watch threads and lots more.
Register now »Already registered? Log in with:
Gransnet »